I'm not sure what's more sad... the fact that I didn't realize you were joking until the robot part, or the fact that the other replies didn't seem to notice at all.
I'm just suggesting there might be more important goals than trying to get everyone in the world a PC right now.
Oh? And can you suggest some more important goals that AMD, Google, Motorola, Samsung, and News Corp, specifically, would be able to achieve, while still being able to say they're acting in the interest of their shareholders?
What's next, telling cancer researchers they should be trying to solve world hunger instead?
It is a must-read book (one of the few course books I didn't regret buying), but perhaps a bit basic for what the story poster seems to be looking for?:)
All the comments above about the 5mb make me want to invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet... Seriously people, do you REALLY think it's actually 5MB, or that you're the only witty person who noticed that and decided to make a wisecrack?
*ahem*
Back on topic, this will be interesting to watch. iRiver makes some gorgeous MP3 players, and their interface designers generally know what they're doing. Their MP3 CD players are, IMO, the best on the market. They don't quite have Apple's cult following or extreme design simplicity, although their designs are better than most, so chances are this won't be an iPod "killer" - but it might finally be an alternative to it:)
First, some nitpicky stuff. The quotes are probably not what I would've gone with... to my eyes, they're highly subjective. As far as I'm concerned Firefox isn't faster than IE or Opera (and has some annoying stalls at times). Others will say that IE is faster, or Opera is faster, or, indeed, that Firefox is much faster. The stability is also arguable, and its perception will differ from person to person. (and yes, I have been using Firefox exclusively since a day or two after 1.0, but not because of its speed or stability!) And finally, 10 million downloads != 10 million users.
Really, the only reason the above bother me is that they are vague and highly subjective, and could easily be used against Firefox in a counter-campaign (by who? Hmmm...)
Having said that, the above (and several other posts pointing out how the ad could have been better) is partly missing the point. I think this ad is really about accomplishing two things for Firefox: legitimacy and brand awareness.
For those who are only marginally aware of open source, free might mean coded by a bunch of amateurs in their spare time, and definitely not the same quality as something produced by a company with billions of dollars behind it (you have to admit, there IS some kind of perverse logic to that...) If I held that (mis)conception, and saw a 2-page ad in the NYT, I might change my mind. At the very least, I would think that Firefox is backed up by some major companies as well, and thus has no reason not to be in the same ballpark as Microsoft products. Hey, I wouldn't have learned anything about open source, but one step at a time. With luck, this line of thinking (or an equivalent conversation) might happen in many companies, leading them to consider Firefox as a real alternative.
Brand awareness is also pretty simple. I don't think this ad is meant to have anyone put down their paper, run to their computer, and hold their breath while they're downloading Firefox. It really is about taking that fuzzy area labelled "Internet" in most people's brains and creating a small partition with Firefox and a cool logo in it. That partition will get larger and larger with every time they see Firefox mentioned in the future, until one day, as they're struggling to get control of their browser back from pop-ups, a link is made and they realize they don't have to put up with it anymore.
And lastly, as was mentioned many times before, talk and news of the ad have, and will, probably generate at least as much publicity as the ad itself.
>Salaried employees aren't paid x dollars for y time of work. They're paid x dollars to do a JOB.
And if a salaried employee consistently works more efficiently and finishes his JOB early, does he get to take that time off or does he simply get more work?
Overall I agree with your point, but be careful when you throw numbers around like that. If you're referring to the same study I'm thinking of, that 28 number includeds - heck, is mostly made up of - cookies, which is not what most people think of when they say spyware.
That's great. First post in the "Can Episode 3 be saved" discussion, modded to +4 Funny when I read it, has the exact same content as the parent. The parent, however, is a troll...
By that logic, you could load up a crate of DVDs in a space probe and blast it out of the solar system... you'll get even more impressive, but entirely meaningless numbers.
Once again, wishing there was a Troll score for a story... this one certainly deserves it.
Do I really need to restate the extremely valid reasons mentioned by virtually all replies so far?
A better question is, WHY would any company do that? Is there ANY possible business case for increasing your QA budget tenfold, and possibly doubling your development budget? Not to mention the extra hassle customers would be faced with in this case.
There's reinventing the wheel, and then there's shooting yourself in both feet and starting to crawl around...
A valid point, except most games have a fair bit of licensed code that wasn't developed in-house; it's impossible for a company to just decide to release the source to everything. And what's the alternative - spending tons of man-hours on stripping all the licensed code from an old game, just to release it for free? Doesn't make much sense either way.
If you "just didn't get into it", then it's doubtful that any comment you read on Slashdot will change your mind...
There are many reasons why Tribes (haven't played Tribes 2) kicked ass. For one, many features in it - vehicles, large outdoor maps, and to some extent flying - have only now showed up in UT2004. Tribes did it, what, 6 years ago? It was innovative in many, many ways - and the best part is that the innovations weren't simply a gimmick for the most part, they actually helped gameplay.
With different character "classes", Tribes felt a lot more team-oriented than any other game at the time - even if there was little actual communication involved. Nothing like running for the flag - or running back with it - and having your ass saved by a couple of guys sitting back lobbing mortars at the enemies chasing you. Nothing like sniping a guy across the map - in MID-AIR - and seeing his body fall down to the ground (possibly sans flag). Nothing like getting shot by a sniper - the same sniper - 2-3 times before you figure out where he is; another 4-5 times while you're trying to snipe back; then finally getting him, and having him congratulate you.
That was another part of it, I think - the people playing Tribes (at the time) were a lot friendlier and more fun to play against than your average 12-year-old (or 12-year-old sound-alike) CS regular.
I loved UT as well, and played it probably even more than Tribes - but mostly because all my friends were also playing it obsessively, and even had a couple of servers up for our use. They ARE two different games though, and comparing them isn't very fair to either one.
"We've been here since the 1970s. It would be un-American to be scared away," Harriman says.
Say WHAT?
I was fairly indifferent to both sides of the argument until I read that little gem at the end of the article.
What in the world does being American have to do with any of this? What, in Mr. Harriman's opinion, is considered "American"? The goal of making money at any cost, without losing much sleep over considering consequences to the environment or to the society? That's what he seems to be implying... I'm not American, but if I were, I'd probably be outraged at a fellow American making a statement like that.
Here come more clueless "developers" who drag&drop their way to software disasters...:)
In all seriousness though, this is most likely a good thing. It'll be interesting to see how this changes the corporate landscape. Although I have to cringe at any press release that uses the word "leverage"...
From the pictures, that looks like one LARGE computer mouse... I have serious doubts I'd find it comfortable to sleep with that thing strapped to my waist.
At any rate... this is yet another one of those inventions that make me think "What? We didn't have that yet? Must've just been in some novel I read..."
Still wonder what CPOD stands for, the article doesn't seem to explain.:p
If you'll want it to be usable by anyone, resist the temptation to "just start writing" and plan it extensively. Write down what the main categories should be - what are the main components of the system, and more importantly, what are the main categories of people who will be reading the documentation? What are they looking for?
Expand each main category into subcategories. Keep going until you have a detailed outline. By the time you have a good outline, you probably will have reorganized/reconsidered everything several times... but if you have a good outline, the only thing left is to fill in the gaps, which will be tedious but straightforward.
Well, many would argue that Microsoft's software quality is directly related to being allowed to continue with their business model for so long... same old tired arguments that have been repeated on Slashdot millions of times (business model works too well, competition squashed, monopoly, no reason to make better products, etc.)
If the business model and the product ARE interrelated, I'm not sure you can be okay with one, but not the other:)
This is a somewhat silly argument, because I agree with you that the wording in the article was a bit odd; I never thought that being nice to competitors is expected of a business. I do believe that monopolies should be forced to play by different rules though. If that helps the economy run smoother and keeps the market closer to a true free market, is it really socialist? (lack of government intervention does not a free market make...)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure what's more sad... the fact that I didn't realize you were joking until the robot part, or the fact that the other replies didn't seem to notice at all.
:)
Good post, regardless
I'm just suggesting there might be more important goals than trying to get everyone in the world a PC right now.
Oh? And can you suggest some more important goals that AMD, Google, Motorola, Samsung, and News Corp, specifically, would be able to achieve, while still being able to say they're acting in the interest of their shareholders?
What's next, telling cancer researchers they should be trying to solve world hunger instead?
That speed is definitely impressive!
:)
Keep in mind that the price is in pounds, however.
For example, up here Sympatico offers their "Ultra" service - 4Mbps download, 0.8Mbps upload - for CAD$60 = US$48 = 26 pounds. That's with no caps.
Their regular service, 3Mbps down, 0.8Mbps up, is CAD$45 = US$36 = 19 pounds. Again, no caps.
I'd be interested to hear what the prices are like in Korea, for example...
You're not trolling, just stupid.
http://azureus.sourceforge.net/2200/cpu_usage.php
If your computer still crawls to death after you install Java 1.5, I'll eat my hat.
Shrug... they should just call the section 1984 and be done with it.
It is a must-read book (one of the few course books I didn't regret buying), but perhaps a bit basic for what the story poster seems to be looking for? :)
All the comments above about the 5mb make me want to invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet... Seriously people, do you REALLY think it's actually 5MB, or that you're the only witty person who noticed that and decided to make a wisecrack?
:)
*ahem*
Back on topic, this will be interesting to watch. iRiver makes some gorgeous MP3 players, and their interface designers generally know what they're doing. Their MP3 CD players are, IMO, the best on the market. They don't quite have Apple's cult following or extreme design simplicity, although their designs are better than most, so chances are this won't be an iPod "killer" - but it might finally be an alternative to it
Shoo! Shoo! Today's NYT is supposed to be all about Firefox :p
I kid, I kid.
This is great to see!
First, some nitpicky stuff. The quotes are probably not what I would've gone with... to my eyes, they're highly subjective. As far as I'm concerned Firefox isn't faster than IE or Opera (and has some annoying stalls at times). Others will say that IE is faster, or Opera is faster, or, indeed, that Firefox is much faster. The stability is also arguable, and its perception will differ from person to person. (and yes, I have been using Firefox exclusively since a day or two after 1.0, but not because of its speed or stability!) And finally, 10 million downloads != 10 million users.
Really, the only reason the above bother me is that they are vague and highly subjective, and could easily be used against Firefox in a counter-campaign (by who? Hmmm...)
Having said that, the above (and several other posts pointing out how the ad could have been better) is partly missing the point. I think this ad is really about accomplishing two things for Firefox: legitimacy and brand awareness.
For those who are only marginally aware of open source, free might mean coded by a bunch of amateurs in their spare time, and definitely not the same quality as something produced by a company with billions of dollars behind it (you have to admit, there IS some kind of perverse logic to that...) If I held that (mis)conception, and saw a 2-page ad in the NYT, I might change my mind. At the very least, I would think that Firefox is backed up by some major companies as well, and thus has no reason not to be in the same ballpark as Microsoft products. Hey, I wouldn't have learned anything about open source, but one step at a time. With luck, this line of thinking (or an equivalent conversation) might happen in many companies, leading them to consider Firefox as a real alternative.
Brand awareness is also pretty simple. I don't think this ad is meant to have anyone put down their paper, run to their computer, and hold their breath while they're downloading Firefox. It really is about taking that fuzzy area labelled "Internet" in most people's brains and creating a small partition with Firefox and a cool logo in it. That partition will get larger and larger with every time they see Firefox mentioned in the future, until one day, as they're struggling to get control of their browser back from pop-ups, a link is made and they realize they don't have to put up with it anymore.
And lastly, as was mentioned many times before, talk and news of the ad have, and will, probably generate at least as much publicity as the ad itself.
>Salaried employees aren't paid x dollars for y time of work. They're paid x dollars to do a JOB.
And if a salaried employee consistently works more efficiently and finishes his JOB early, does he get to take that time off or does he simply get more work?
Overall I agree with your point, but be careful when you throw numbers around like that. If you're referring to the same study I'm thinking of, that 28 number includeds - heck, is mostly made up of - cookies, which is not what most people think of when they say spyware.
That's great. First post in the "Can Episode 3 be saved" discussion, modded to +4 Funny when I read it, has the exact same content as the parent. The parent, however, is a troll...
:p
Who said Slashdot is impartial, anyway
By that logic, you could load up a crate of DVDs in a space probe and blast it out of the solar system... you'll get even more impressive, but entirely meaningless numbers.
Once again, wishing there was a Troll score for a story... this one certainly deserves it.
Do I really need to restate the extremely valid reasons mentioned by virtually all replies so far?
A better question is, WHY would any company do that? Is there ANY possible business case for increasing your QA budget tenfold, and possibly doubling your development budget? Not to mention the extra hassle customers would be faced with in this case.
There's reinventing the wheel, and then there's shooting yourself in both feet and starting to crawl around...
and we sat down and watched the footy together cause I had done nothing wrong.
Until they change the law so only one person is allowed to watch TV at a time, because anything else would be stealing...
First they came for the crackers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a cracker.
Then they came for the hackers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a hackers.
Then they came for the file sharers
and I did not speak out - because I was not a file sharer.
Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.
Feel free to flame about the difference between hackers and crackers, which is even more off-topic than this post...
A valid point, except most games have a fair bit of licensed code that wasn't developed in-house; it's impossible for a company to just decide to release the source to everything. And what's the alternative - spending tons of man-hours on stripping all the licensed code from an old game, just to release it for free? Doesn't make much sense either way.
If you "just didn't get into it", then it's doubtful that any comment you read on Slashdot will change your mind...
There are many reasons why Tribes (haven't played Tribes 2) kicked ass. For one, many features in it - vehicles, large outdoor maps, and to some extent flying - have only now showed up in UT2004. Tribes did it, what, 6 years ago? It was innovative in many, many ways - and the best part is that the innovations weren't simply a gimmick for the most part, they actually helped gameplay.
With different character "classes", Tribes felt a lot more team-oriented than any other game at the time - even if there was little actual communication involved. Nothing like running for the flag - or running back with it - and having your ass saved by a couple of guys sitting back lobbing mortars at the enemies chasing you. Nothing like sniping a guy across the map - in MID-AIR - and seeing his body fall down to the ground (possibly sans flag). Nothing like getting shot by a sniper - the same sniper - 2-3 times before you figure out where he is; another 4-5 times while you're trying to snipe back; then finally getting him, and having him congratulate you.
That was another part of it, I think - the people playing Tribes (at the time) were a lot friendlier and more fun to play against than your average 12-year-old (or 12-year-old sound-alike) CS regular.
I loved UT as well, and played it probably even more than Tribes - but mostly because all my friends were also playing it obsessively, and even had a couple of servers up for our use. They ARE two different games though, and comparing them isn't very fair to either one.
"We've been here since the 1970s. It would be un-American to be scared away," Harriman says.
Say WHAT?
I was fairly indifferent to both sides of the argument until I read that little gem at the end of the article.
What in the world does being American have to do with any of this? What, in Mr. Harriman's opinion, is considered "American"? The goal of making money at any cost, without losing much sleep over considering consequences to the environment or to the society? That's what he seems to be implying... I'm not American, but if I were, I'd probably be outraged at a fellow American making a statement like that.
Here come more clueless "developers" who drag&drop their way to software disasters... :)
In all seriousness though, this is most likely a good thing. It'll be interesting to see how this changes the corporate landscape. Although I have to cringe at any press release that uses the word "leverage"...
From the pictures, that looks like one LARGE computer mouse... I have serious doubts I'd find it comfortable to sleep with that thing strapped to my waist.
:p
At any rate... this is yet another one of those inventions that make me think "What? We didn't have that yet? Must've just been in some novel I read..."
Still wonder what CPOD stands for, the article doesn't seem to explain.
If you'll want it to be usable by anyone, resist the temptation to "just start writing" and plan it extensively. Write down what the main categories should be - what are the main components of the system, and more importantly, what are the main categories of people who will be reading the documentation? What are they looking for?
Expand each main category into subcategories. Keep going until you have a detailed outline. By the time you have a good outline, you probably will have reorganized/reconsidered everything several times... but if you have a good outline, the only thing left is to fill in the gaps, which will be tedious but straightforward.
As long as people mod posts containing the words "In Soviet Russia" +1 Funny, I'm afraid they'll never go away...
I read that as "Executive Powernap"... which strangely would accomplish pretty much the same thing...
Well, many would argue that Microsoft's software quality is directly related to being allowed to continue with their business model for so long... same old tired arguments that have been repeated on Slashdot millions of times (business model works too well, competition squashed, monopoly, no reason to make better products, etc.)
:)
If the business model and the product ARE interrelated, I'm not sure you can be okay with one, but not the other
This is a somewhat silly argument, because I agree with you that the wording in the article was a bit odd; I never thought that being nice to competitors is expected of a business. I do believe that monopolies should be forced to play by different rules though. If that helps the economy run smoother and keeps the market closer to a true free market, is it really socialist? (lack of government intervention does not a free market make...)